Eastern Illinois University The Keep Masters Theses Student Theses & Publications 1976 Illusion vs. Reality in The rT agedy of Hamlet Glendora S. Plath Eastern Illinois University This research is a product of the graduate program in English at Eastern Illinois University. Find out more about the program. Recommended Citation Plath, Glendora S., "Illusion vs. Reality in The rT agedy of Hamlet" (1976). Masters Theses. 3440. https://thekeep.eiu.edu/theses/3440 This is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Theses & Publications at The Keep. It has been accepted for inclusion in Masters Theses by an authorized administrator of The Keep. For more information, please contact [email protected]. maaion n .. Reality in 'ftle '?ragecty ~ Hal.et (T ITlE) BY Glen&lora S. Plath THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF Master of Arts in English IN THE GRADUATE SCHOOL, EASTERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY CHA RLESTON, ILLINOIS 1976 YEAR I HEREBY RECOMMEND THIS THESIS BE ACCEPTED AS FULFILLING THIS PART OF THE GRADUATE DEGREE CITED ABOVE PAPER CERTIFICATE #2 TO: Graduate Degree Candidates who have written formal theses. SUBJECT: Permission to reproduce theses. The University Library is receiving a number of requests from other institutions asking permission to reproduce dissertations for inclusion in their library holdings. Although no copyright laws are involved, we feel that professional courtesy demands that permission be obtained from the author before we allow theses to be copied. Please sign one of the following statements: Booth Library of Eastern Illinois University has my permission to lend my thesis to a reputable college or university for the purpose of copying it for inclusion in that institution's library or research holdings. I respectfully request Booth Library of Eastern Illinois University not allow my thesis be reproduced because---------------- Date Author pdm 3446?6 B.r using certain dramatic devices, his knowledge of the sixteenth eentur,y belief' in the hierarchical system an:l humanim, as well as in his characterization, especially of Hailllet, Shakespeare reveals that the problm of reality- is central to the play, 12!! Tragedz of Hana.et. other possible theses beccne apparent in a discussion of illusion vs. reali ty, bat in the last analysis all are reduced finally to the problau of reality. An illlportant structural key to the play is the critical distinction between "saan" (illusion) ani "ia" (reality). In crder to bet.ter tmderstam the developnent of 'this motif, two basic Shakespearean assumptions must be arv.ierstood. The fir st is •that the world of appearance is largely t.he world of illusion, and this illusion is the project.ion of ourselves, our dominant interests. Thus there is blindness to what is outside our own conception; and so our guesses about each other can be disastrously' vrong."l The secord is "that reality, the shape of things, that. which vill mt be altered, is not finally conf"ormable to our best intentions, our deepest affections, or, surprisingly, our moat strorgly Willed purposes. As Vi. th our guesses abottt each other so it is vi th our guesses at reality; they will be, in greater or less· degree, inadequate.•2 As a consequence, if one is to experience living in ttreal lif'e," one must accept the limits of humanity, for they consti tute the only reality of which we can have certain knowledge. 1 John Lawlor, ~ Tra,&!c Sense _!!! Shakespeare (Nev York: Harcourt, Brace, 1960), p. 42. 2 Ibid. 2 Before analyzing the mot.its of illusion and reali't7 in Hamlet, it is illportant to understand the Elizabethan belief' in the hierarchical Ol"der-the cosnological (universe), the political and social (state), and the psychological (imividnal)--each a renection of the others. !heodo1"8 Spencer explains it as f'ollows: The governing of the state could be seen as an image of the order of the stars an:i t.he order of the stars were renected in the order of the faculties of man. 'The Ptolomaic fsii/ heavens revolved around the earth; and the sun was the largest and most resplendent of the planets, so the king was the cent.er of' the state. Similarly, as the earth vas the center of the mrl.verse, so justice was the immovable center of political T.lrtue. The cosmological an:i political orders vere ret'lected in the order of nature ••• and though there might be diff'erent interpretations of details, the essentials of the scheme were unhesitati.ngly accepted. The scale rose .t'ran inanimate matter, through the vegetative soul of plants, the sensible soul of animals, the rational soul operating "through the body of man, the pure intelligence of angels, up to the pure actuality of God. Man was an essential link in the chain-the necessary mixture of body and soul to cmplete the order. If' man did not exist, it would have been necess8l"'Y--in fact it had been necessary--to invent h:1:m. And raan was more than this: he was the end for llhieh the rest of the universe had been created.3 Spencer furthe:r: illminates the theory by explaining that man's chief purpose on earth va s to study the book ot nature am the scriptures "so that by knowing truth, he could know himsel!, and hence reach some knov.l.edge of God who bad made hint. • • • For man alone had reason, and though fdse i.rnaginauons (il1u:rl.ons) might arouse his passions and turn him awr,-, am though his humors might be unbalanced, there was no real. doubt that by nse of his distinct Nason he could resist all such 3 Theodore Spencer, "Hamlet and the NatlII'e of Reality,• in Twentieth Century: Interpretation~ of Hamlet_, ed. David Bevington (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 190S), pp. 32-33. 3 disturbances. Man was not a beast, to· be a slave o! his attecttons am his immediate experienca.wh The paragraph above readilJ" explains Hamlet• s disgust vith the corrupt Danish court as li9ll. as his own fear or being •passion's slave." But the system seemed orderly am optimistic, and most Elizabethans were satisfied with it. Yet doubts were beginning to emipt. earJ.y in the centur.r. Copen'dens had questioned the cosmological order; Machiavelli had questioned the political order; and Montaigne had questioned the natural order. The Copernican theoey· vas not absorbed by most Blizabethans, and it was not mitil Galileo per:tected the telescope that the Copernican theo:ey was considered to be "a true description o~ reality." Galileo h:iilseU' was hesitant to support it becaase he was afraid it would make him "look ridiculous.• The latter statement lends proot to how thoroug~ "entrenched" was the Kl.izabethan belie~ in the P"tolemaic Tin. •For the llhole inherited order depended on it. n5 Machiavelli, on the other hand, gives a dismal picture of man in bis book, ~ Prince. He rega?ded the state· "a mral.ly isal.ated thing, human history di~reed from revelatlon, and human nature divorced fran grace.• Looking at man not as he ahou1d be but as he is, he thought man naturally depraved and that he had to be governed "by tear am b;r force." Umerst.andably the Elizabethans viewed this theory ld.th alam. It is not known how much influence, if arq, Machiavelli had on Shakespeare, but. it is koown that Shakespeare had read the essqs or Michel de Montaigne (l.533-1592) as did Sir Francis Bacon, and both 111en 4 Ibid. S Ibid., p • .36. k 6 were infiuenced by thea. Mon1iaigne more explicably supports and further explains his anphatic denial that reason sets man apart tran other animals. He contends that man caxmot know himself, God, his sou1, or nature; his senses m"e unreliable; he has no satisfactory standards !or anything; am "'the only way man can rise from his ignorant and ignominious position is by divine assistance. Man must bow to the authority and reverence o! divine majesty.•• Montaigne concludes t hat "'there is no ditterence between the psychology- of men ard the psychology of animals ••• since reason is insignificant, the whole hierarchy of nature ermbles. "'7 One can easily agree with Spencer's assertion that the idea of man in Shakespeare's pla,ys was inexorably intenroven with the ideas ot state ard world to such a degree that it is difficuJ.t to rea:tize that the interwoven pattern was "threatened by an implicit an:l explicit conflict. "8 And 'When Hanlet infoms Horatio: ""When our deep plots do pall, arxi that should learn us/There's a divinity that shapes our ends/ Rough-pew them we will"(V.ii.9-11),9 he is indicat~ that he real.izes he is in the hards of sane kind of providence. "There is a special providence in the fall of a sparrow"(V.ii.221). 'fuming to Hamlet itself, the play, examined as a whole, can be recognized on the surface as a blood-and-thunder revenge story. On 6 . The World~ F.ncycloJ2edia, 1959 ed., s.v. "Montaigne, Michel E;r- quem ne.n 7 Spencer, p. 38. 8 Ibid. 9 G. B. Harri son, ed., Shakest§are: ~ Cauplete Works (New Yorki Harcourt, Brace~ 1948)I.ii.129-.34. ~ubsequent quotations of Shakespeare v.ill be cited in the text from this edition). s closer sc1"'1tiny, however, the problan of reality becomes evident, and all the =:,stery suJTOunding the problem is revealed. Such an expert Shakespearean critic as John Dover Wilson contems that the pl.ay is an enigma and that "we vere never interned to reach the heart 0£ the 10 nyster.y.